About a month ago, one Law School professor circulated a memo claiming that there was a bitter split among faculty members. According to the professor, Charles R. Nesson '60, associate dean of the school, the faculty has been divided into a "right" and a "left" camp throughout the past decade. The faculty division had become so deep. Nesson charged, that it led professors to engage in "Villification of the opposition, name-calling, backstabbing and character assassination."

Many professors--though not all--agree with Nesson's assessment. While most of these faculty members do not believe the split is as intense as Nesson says, they do agree that the polarization affects the way the faculty operates.

Those who disagree with Nesson's portraya' of the faculty believe faculty disagreements are more complex Law School Dean James Vorenberg '49 says. It's much too simplistic to divide the faculty along one line." He and others contend that the Law faculty divides along many different lines on different issues.

Nesson not only believes the split is intense, but describes it as "the fundamental problem of the school." In fact, he sees the problem as so important that, in his memorandum, he recommends delaying discussions of the Michelman Report--a three-year evaluation of the Law School's curriculum and teaching methods--until after the faculty has dealt with the split Nesson says that the disagreements inevitably generated by a heated curriculum debate will only widen the faculty rift.

Nesson's Law School colleagues do not agree on this point, and the faculty began consideration of the report last month. The faculty did, however, discuss Nesson's memo at one of its weekly meetings.

Probably the most controversial part of Nesson's memo is his characterization of the Law School during the sixties. "When I came here in 1966," he says, "the atmosphere of the school was stifling."

Nesson claims that then-dean Erwin N. Griswold effectively imposed "his image of what it meant to be a faculty member at the Harvard Law School" on the professors.

Other professors flatly refute Nesson's version of the period. "Dean Griswold did not play favorites." David R. Herwitz., Scott Professor of Law, says, adding. "The atmosphere was not stifling."

Detlev F. Vagts '49. Goldston Professors of Law, notes that ironically the Law School's tolerant hiring policies during the late sixties may have contributed to the faculty rift. He says that, both under Griswold and immediately after, "many left-wing faculty members were appointed." He adds that "Most other schools were a little more narrow in faculty selection so [they] have less of a split."

But Duncan M. Kennedy '64, professor of Law, disagrees with this theory Kennedy says that when he was appointed to the faculty in 1971, soon after the end of Griswold's tenure as dean, there were no other radicals or leftists on the Law faculty. He adds that since 1971 there has only been one other person appointed to the faculty who was known to be a radical before their appointment.

The left camp of the faculty, says Kennedy, has not formed from leftists being appointed to the faculty. Rather he believes some faculty moderates have moved to the left.

Almost all faculty members who agree that a split exists say that the rift becomes most apparent in faculty appointment debates. As Nesson charges. "The polarization of the faculty has brought us to a point where people must choose up sides. "The polarization of the faculty has brought us to a point where people must choose up sides, where a young person worrying about tenure will inevitably be lead to think in terms of political alliances."

One tenure candidate who apparently didn't do enough thinking about political alliances is Lea Brilmayer. Vagts says that, due to opposition from the left, she was denied tenure this year. Vagts adds that the tenuring discussions were bitter, noting. "There was a certain amount of stinging around the place."

The Michelman Report is the next issue which might inflame the faculty split. The Michelman Committee, responsible for the Law School's curriculum review, advocates in this report that the faculty make a strong commitment to clinical education--practical legal education through experience with real-life clients as well as simulations--as well as making some changes in the secon-and third-year programs.

While nobody thinks the faculty will veto the committee's clinical education recommendations, arguments between the left and right could affect the degree of the faculty's support for clinical education programs. Legal educators at other major law schools have pointed out that this will be the most important outcome of the faculty debate since limited use of clinical education has already gained widespread acceptance.

Kennedy has already responded to the Michelman Report, which he says does not go far enough, with his own New Model Curriculum proposal which calls the current second-and third year program "a flop."

Whatever the effects of the current disagreement, the future may bring the Law faculty closer to reconciliation. Nesson describes the faculty's discussion on his memo as "satisfactory," and one law professor says the very fact that people are talking about the issue shows the atmosphere is less tense. "We're on the road to reconciliation." Nesson says. But as another faculty member notes. "It's hard to tell how long the road will be."